.
In the "Chronobiology" thread I explained the problem with the idea that "the birth chart reflects the physical world in a similar way as a X-Ray reflects a specific physical reality of an adult part of the body":

Quote:

If we were using x-rays as we use birth charts, it would have to be something like this: We take an x-ray of the little newborn's body at the exact moment of birth, and throughout his life keep referring to what appears in it. If at the age of 30 as an adult he comes crying because his wife and children left him, we take this x-ray of the moment he was born 30 years ago, do some strange math with it, and say to ourselves: "here is him, now I can see why his wife left him".
We look at the x-ray and say: the left arm is his father, the right arm is his mother, the heart is the place of his love life, his head is his personality, that backbone is his friends, the left leg his profession, the right leg is family life, his feet is work environment. Additionally the x-ray is divided into superimposing symmetrical and colored sectors that have nothing to do with anatomy, one sector is fire, the other water, etc.

Neither the analogical classification of space sectors nor the colored sections representing abstract qualities exist in the the body or in an x-ray of it, and the same can be said of an astrological chart: it contains similar classifications of space sectors (the houses) and similar colored sections (the elements and qualities of the 30-degree signs) that do not exist at all in the sky, they exist only in the imagination.

Now let's examine the idea that "an astrological chart reflects the heaven of a precise moment as seen from a specific place".

From the onset we know this is not true because the chart shows many things that do not exists at all in the sky. But what about those that exist?

Between January 1, 1900 and Jan 1, 2020, there are 1488 conjunctions of Venus and the Moon by zodiacal longitude. In 594 of these cases, the real distance between the Moon and Venus in the sky however is more than 4 degrees, and in 78 of these, the distance is more than 8 degrees, i.e., the space in the sky covered by 16 full-moon disks put together as minimum. In all these cases, the chart is a reflection of the physical world only marginally, or approximately, unless differences of 8, 10, or 12 degrees are not considered significant.

On March 25 2001 at TU 16h24m00s, the Moon and Venus were in exact conjunction in longitude. If I make a conventional chart for London (51n27) for this exact moment, I find the Moon and Venus in the 8th in 12,18' Aries. However, when I calculate where the Moon would actually be in zodiacal longitude if it were actually observed at that time from London, it turns out that its position would then be 11,34 Aries, and it is only 1h27m (one hour and a half) later, at TU 17h51m02s, that the exact conjunction in longitude occurs, with the Moon and Venus in the middle of the 7th house, not in the 8th as the conventional chart shows.

But the actual situation in the real world is even more complicated. If, having calculated the time of the conjunction in zodiacal topocentric longitude instead of the standard geocentric longitude, I look at the sky and measure the angular distance between the Moon and Venus at the time of their exact conjunction, it turns out that they are 13,44' apart, almost half a sign from each other!, while the standard astrological chart shows them in exact conjunction (orb=0,00').

Now I calculate a chart for the time when the Moon that day crossed the cusp of the 7th house by longitude, i.e., when it "set" -- or we can imagine that we have made a horary chart that day that shows the Moon right on the cusp the 7th. The time of the exact crossing in geocentric zodiacal longitude shown in the standard chart is 19h04m56s, with the Moon in 13,42 Aries and the Asc. in 13,42 Libra. But if at that exact time we look at the sky and measure the observed position of the Moon with respect to the western horizon (assuming that we have removed the effects of atmospheric refraction), it turns out that the real Moon is already more than 5 degrees below the horizon, and it had set about 22 minutes ago, so we would miss the setting of the Moon completely. Instead of the real Moon being exactly on the cusp of the 7th as is shown in a standard astrological chart, it is in the 24th degree of the placidian 6th house.

So we have a standard chart with an exact, zero-orb "partile" Moon/Venus conjunction that never happened in the physical world (they were physically 14 degrees apart), we have the chart showing the longitudinal aspect becoming exact in the 8th house, while in the physical world it became exact 1h27m later in the 7th house, and we have the Moon in the chart crossing the horizon 22 minutes after the actual physical Moon crossed it: the chart shows the Moon on the cusp of the 7th, but in the physical world the real Moon at that moment is in the 24th degree of the 6th. All this time, the astrologer ignores the physical world and interprets only what appears in the chart, assuming that he or she is dealing with something real and physical.

Is this standard astrological chart a reflection of what is happening in the physical world? Is everything the chart is showing happening also in the physical world? Are the events between unidimensional coordinate points shown in a standard astrological chart synchronistic with what is happening simultaneously to the real planets in the sky?

.
The previous post refers to the effects of ignoring celestial latitude and ignoring the effect of parallax, which is how astrologers work 95% of the time. It shows, as a matter of fact, that birth charts don't picture the actual bi-dimensional positions of the planets in the sky, but a unidimensional flat coordinate (ecliptic longitude).

Except when working with oblique ascensions (e.g. primary directions, astro-cartography, parans) --which is not a standard practice-- astrologers ignore the second dimension and work with an abstract coordinate point in the chart that they call "a planet". By means of numerical and analogical, physically impossible manipulations of celestial mechanics, they calculate events that happen to this abstract coordinate point in the chart and ignore completely what is physically happening in the sky.

Is the standard astrological chart a reflection of what is happening in the physical world? -- only partially, some parts of the chart (e.g. 30-degree signs of the zodiac, intermediary house cusps) exist only in the imagination.

Is everything the chart is showing happening also in the physical world? -- no.

Are the events between unidimensional coordinate points shown in a standard astrological chart synchronistic with what is happening simultaneously to the real planets in the sky? -- sometimes --or seldom-- they coincide... more or less.

In view of these facts, why is it that the concept that "an astrological chart reflects the heaven of a precise moment as seen from a specific place, it reflects the physical reality of the world", being so insufficient, and so many times wrong, is nevertheless repeated over and over in astrological textbooks and reputed schools?

The correct, realistic concept should be: An astrological chart is the mathematical reduction and simplification of the physical reality of the heavens. It is made of superimposing semantic and classification structures modelled after the geometry of celestial mechanics, but these structures (signs, planets, houses...) are a reflection not of the heavens but of the analytic structure of the human mind. The standard astrological chart is designed not to represent the heavens but to be used as an analytical tool, and therefore it does not refer back to the heavens but to human experience and the human mind.

Juan

Last edited by Juan on Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

...
The correct, realistic concept should be: An astrological chart is the mathematical reduction and simplication of the physical reality of the heavens. It is made of superimposing semantic and classification structures modelled after the geometry of celestial mechanics, but these structures (signs, planets, houses...) are a reflection not of the heavens but of the analytic structure of the human mind. The standard astrological chart is designed not to represent the heavens but to be used as an analytical tool, and therefore it does not refer back to the heavens but to human experience and the human mind.

Thanks Juan for that clear exposition of the reality of the situation regarding the relationship between a horoscope and the heavens.

Quote:

In view of these facts, why is it that the concept that "an astrological chart reflects the heaven of a precise moment as seen from a specific place, it reflects the physical reality of the world", being so insufficient, and so many times wrong, is nevertheless repeated over and over in astrological textbooks and reputed schools?

I think the main reason is that those who write the text books and run the schools are ignorant of the situation which you have described, despite the fact that you have been writing about them for a long time. Whether this implies a willful ignorance, I have no idea. Maybe they are simply unaware of the existence of your work.

Mental laziness and intellectual shallowness, not to mention intellectual cowardice, may also play their part. The ramifications of the points you are making, if accepted, would necessitate a serious overhaul of the curricula in the major astrology schools, especially those which are Saturnian quasi-academic institutions that provide accreditation. One can hardly expect them to be open to what are effectively revolutionary proposals, no matter how evidently correct they are.

To do so, apart from anything else, would potentially devalue past accreditations. The quasi-academic institutions can inadvertantly act as a buffer against the evolution of astrological understanding. Students inherit the model they are presented with. Exams test that this has happened to a sufficient degree to allow the conferring of letters after a particular student's name. Admittedly the extent to which this is an issue will vary from institution to institution. This is true for academic institutions in general, some of which are more open to provocative thinking and ideas than others.

Of course, once one actually gets some mileage on the clock as regards practical experience, and if one thinks critically or becomes curious about what one is actually doing, the way one perceives astrology can evolve beyond the confines of the model.

The task is made more difficult because such proposals as yours tend to extend the gap between astrology and scientific norms, and therefore make the likelihood of mainstream acceptance seem more distant. On the other hand, the Gauquelin results seem to provide a means of closing that gap, and therefore are seen as hopefully bringing astrology closer to mainstream acceptance. They are consequently embraced more readily with open arms even if they have very little to do with astrology at all.

Whatever, these results have not led, and will not lead to any overhaul of astrological conventions, simply because they do not relate to astrology in the wild. Clutching at this Gauquelin straw though has had an unfortunate consequence; many astrologers will ignore the points you are making, or even attack you for making them. I imagine that you can count on one hand (with a couple of fingers missing) the number of individuals who have made well-reasoned arguments against your proposals and their implications.

C'est la vie.

Keep up the good work. Posterity will thank you for it, but in the meantime I'll thank you again for it now and in the present!

The correct, realistic concept should be: An astrological chart is the mathematical reduction and simplication of the physical reality of the heavens... designed not to represent the heavens but to be used as an analytical tool, and therefore it does not refer back to the heavens but to human experience and the human mind.

Elegantly put!
- Ed

Hi, Ed. I was wondering where you were. This brings us to the concept of a horoscope as a mathematical model not of the sky but of a specific human reality charted by it, and to something you wrote 2 years ago in another forum, which I am sure you won't mind that I quote it here:

Ed F wrote:

I view astrology as a symbolic language akin to mathematics, with assumptions, tokens, frames of reference, rules for consistency of and for interpreting (in the mathematical sense of mapping to phenomena) its elements and relationships, and how to derive conclusions.

In mathematics, and in fields where mathematical models are used to understand and to predict phenomena, there are:

1. Multiple kinds of mathematics that can be applied
2. Multiple modelling methods can be used
3. Rules within each of these to evaluate the consistency and correctness of results within the system.
4. Rules for evaluating the applicability of a model and its usefulness.

I think all of these concerns apply to astrology, and that there are multiple possible systems of astrology that work more or less well for a given subject matter. These systems can include or exclude various astrological tokens.

What most astrological systems lack is clear articulation of the principles, elements and rules, and methods for evaluating effectiveness (3&4).

Thanks for the reminder Juan. I've been a bit scarce on the astro forums due to lack of time. (Funny reason for an astrologer).

I have to say though that most astrologers seem to find the mathematics analogy less than compelling. For some reason they confuse it with wanting astrology to be scientific. Which of course is not at all what it's about.

many astrologers will ignore the points you are making, or even attack you for making them. I imagine that you can count on one hand (with a couple of fingers missing) the number of individuals who have made well-reasoned arguments against your proposals and their implications... C'est la vie.

Hi, Bill. I'm only extending to its limits the explanations and principles put forth many decades ago by Marc Edmund Jones. He is an interesting case in mainstream astrological culture because he has been given recognition as "the dean of American astrologers", yet his understanding of the nature of Astrology, what it is and how it works (which essentially is the one I have), was never understood or appreciated, to the point that his philosophical contribution is almost never mentioned.

This situation was made even worse by Robert Zoller in his article "Marc Edmund Jones and New Age Astrology in America", which contains affirmations and conclusions that are patently wrong and misleading. Zoller believes that M.E. Jones stand on Astrology was influenced mainly by H.P. Blavastky and Theosophy, and asserts that his astrological thinking has been widely accepted, talking about Jones' "success":

Both conclusions are evidently wrong. The most important and deeper implications of his astrological thinking has never been accepted or appreciated (witness the reaction to my ideas), and his philosophy of Astrology has very little or nothing to do with Theosophy, but was instead influenced by the pragmatist philosophy of William James.

Ed believes (I think) that this was in part due to his very difficult writing style, but I think it is more because what he said did not conform to astrologers' traditional beliefs and superstitions, so they prefer to ignore him.

There are and have been others who share the same view of Astrology. See what sidereal astrologer Kenneth Irving wrote about the birth chart in 1988:

Quote:

"The meaning in a birth chart is really a set of mathematical and philosophical constructs mentally overlaid on a diagram that is a bare outline of what one might actually experience if watching, and experiencing, the changing panorama of the sky" [Kenneth Irving, American Astrology, p.20, Vol.56 No.7, Sept. 1988]

This is a simple, elementary truth. Any theory of Astrology should be based on these and several other similar truths about the basic astrological tools. For example:

- astrological tools are completely asynchronous with nature,
- transits to a birth chart can exist only in the human imagination
- it is impossible to model or chart the physical link between planets and people because the unknown cannot be charted.

These are simple truths that can be verified by anyone; but instead astrologers decide to ignore them or label them as "opinions", holding to their beliefs and superstitions about Astrology. We all suffer the results of this attitude.

Juan

Last edited by Juan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:00 am; edited 1 time in total

Yes, to some extent I believe Jones' writing style is an element in his rejection (even back in the early 70's). But I agree that you have a more precise mark on the target - the ideas are difficult and challenge assumptions. Hell, most astrologers think there's some kind of physical causation in play, whether they admit it or not.

In view of these facts, why is it that the concept that "an astrological chart reflects the heaven of a precise moment as seen from a specific place, it reflects the physical reality of the world", being so insufficient, and so many times wrong

I think we can put it in other words: the physical reality of the heaven is not reflected in a conventional ecliptic-projection based chart. It’s as simple as that.

Once we have recognised that, we can choose what the basis of our delineation is. If we accept that projections on a plane – ecliptic, horizon, meridian, equator, prime vertical, or time based or spherical mundane relationships – are effective, meaningful points, and we also accept geometrical relations (“aspects”) between them, then we already have a great choice of astrological techniques.

Intersections of planes, if accepted as effective points, give you the ASC, MC and the Nodes.

For Signs and Houses, we have to find another reason. I don’t have one yet.

We just have to be aware of what we are doing and why.

René

P.S. These are thoughts of a Kepler/Newtonian kind. I don’t know how to incorporate the Theory of Relativity, not to mention Quantum Mechanics……..

I think we can put it in other words: the physical reality of the heaven is not reflected in a conventional ecliptic-projection based chart. It’s as simple as that.
Once we have recognised that, we can choose what the basis of our delineation is. If we accept that projections on a plane – ecliptic, horizon, meridian, equator, prime vertical, or time based or spherical mundane relationships – are effective, meaningful points, and we also accept geometrical relations (“aspects”) between them, then we already have a great choice of astrological techniques.
Intersections of planes, if accepted as effective points, give you the ASC, MC and the Nodes.
For Signs and Houses, we have to find another reason. I don’t have one yet.
We just have to be aware of what we are doing and why.

Yes. If we understand how the coordinate points shown in a chart are established or calculated, and understand the limited way in which they reproduce the physical reality of the heavens, we can use them meaningfully and effectively. As you and Ed point out, we are then free to use alternative systems of reference that give us another valid model or analytic angle of the situation. We will understand that even though the discrete coordinate point (e.g. ecliptic longitude) is tied to the real planet in the sky, the point by itself does not reflect the actual situation of the sky. Astrologers work with discrete coordinate points (mainly longitude), they interpret angular relationships or events between these coordinate points over a one-dimensional circumference (the astrological chart), events that often do not happen, and in many cases (e.g. transits) cannot happen in the sky at all. They NEVER deal with the real planets in the sky themselves except in non-standard cases where no "radix" charting is involved.

I had been writing a post this morning and it turned out to be too long, so I'm not sure if I should post it or not. It is an attempt to go deeper into the issues brought by the use of astrological charts, which is the subject I set out to discuss in this thread, so what the heck, I will post it anyway, but divided in 2 parts.

Most astrologers will tell you that Astrology's basic principle is the direct correlation, or correspondence, or concordance, or synchronicity, between what happens on earth or in our lives and what happens in the sky. This idea has implicit a sense of harmony or connection with Universe, and carries the memory of ancient sky watchers, and of an esthetic and spiritual satisfaction.

The concordance between the earth and the sky is tied inseparably to the experience of time and of nature. It exists because there is a becoming, it becomes a living experience to us through the observation of celestial movement concomitant to changes on the earth and in our lives. Without this movement or change, the concordance cannot be experienced and can only be imagined.

The practice of horoscopics --contrary to Babylonian observational astrology-- does not involve neither requires the observation of the sky. Astrologers work with calculated, not observed positions, with abstract mathematical coordinates and not with what is observed or experienced.

The work of a horoscopic astrologer is dependent on the use of tables and on calculation, not on the experience or observation of the sky. We just assume that all those abstract coordinates correspond to what is happening in the sky. However, as we have seen in reference to a standard astrological chart, in many cases this correspondence is vague or absent, and in the majority of cases merely approximate, regardless of how accurate or precise the coordinates may be from a mathematical or astronomical point of view.

When astrologers base their work on coordinate points in a chart of an artificially frozen moment of time, rather than on the real experience of movement in the sky, it happens that what is usually imagined (the above idea of an earth/sky synchronicity) is no longer tied to what they are doing, and this produces great confusion among astrologers.

When we base our work on a chart, the correspondence between the earth and the sky is completely wiped out because the birth or radix chart artificially stops time. The moment or instant itself for which the chart is made, is concordant with the flow of time in nature and in the sky, but in making and studying a chart of this moment astrologers are not just representing the conditions of the sky: they are representing whatever was born at that moment and place. This constitutes a radical jump from the physically real to the imagined.

This distinction is fundamental. Astrologers use the chart AS IF it were an actual symbolical entity that was born at the time for which the chart is made. I emphasize the term "symbolical entity" (an event, a person, a life, a question, an expedition...) because Astrology is not designed to deal with physical things physically. Astrology simply provides bi-dimensional coordinate points in the celestial sphere, or unidimensional coordinate points in a horoscope, and a sophisticated cultural system to interpret the angular or purely geometric relationships between them and imaginatively associate them with the "object" that the chart represents, which can be physical or not.

This is evident from the beginnings of horoscopics in the meaning given to the houses. These meanings are a cultural product and show that Astrology was a system of signs rather than causes, but this was ignored by authors like Ptolemy, who thought of Astrology in terms of natural causes. A great confusion among astrologers between theory and practice is the result of this assumption. Kepler became aware of this and decided to do away with Judicial Astrology altogether and reinterpret all of Astrology in terms of natural causes, something which cannot be done unless one re-invents a new kind of Astrology.

Juan

Last edited by Juan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

Astrologers calculate events that happen to abstract coordinate points in a chart, and they assume that these represent real events in the lives of the entity to which the chart metaphorically belongs. The important point here is that the chart represents the entity not only at the moment it was born, but also throughout its entire life.

The chart of the moment of birth is the paradigmatic tool through which planetary or celestial coordinates are given meaning with reference to the individual entity in toto. Every astrological technique, every other derivative or horary chart, every other moment in the life of the entity, is seen in reference to the birth chart when we want to establish the meaning this moment has in terms of the life of the entity as a whole.

At this point, the astrologer has removed himself completely from nature. When astrologers base their work work on radix or birth charts (as opposed to horary) they NEVER study or observe the actual correlations between a specific moment of time in the life of an individual and what is happening synchronistically in the sky at that moment, they concentrate exclusively on the natal chart (transits, progressions, directions, birth tendencies).

Even when calculating transits --which are really happenning synchronistically in the sky at the time-- astrologers normally NEVER observe how the transit affects the individual life except in a generic, group way. For the transit to have meaning specific to the individual, it is referred first to the chart of the moment of birth, which means that it is treated in way similar to directions and progressions.

NOTE: Horary Astrology here occupies a somewhat different, apparently more synchronistic place. But in this case the entities charted are more clearly symbolic: questions or momentary sets of circumstances, so few try to equate its principles to "Science", as is the tendency in the case of natal Astrology.

Let's imagine for a moment that the planets in the sky have some sort of influence on or concordant relationship with our personal lives and decisions. This influence or synchronicity is happening all the time, not only at the moment of birth, but astrologers ignore this completely and refer everything to the moment of birth, or perhaps to the latest solar return months ago, or to a recent horary chart of a few days or maybe hours ago... i.e., everything that happens is referred to abstract charts of specific significant moments in the past and NEVER to the individual itself in temporal simultaneity with the planets in the sky for a very simple reason: nobody knows how that could be done.

When the astrologer works with charts that are treated as a radix (i.e., when individual temporal events are referred to them), he or she is not dealing with the actual synchronistic correlations between the sky and the individual, rather, what the astrologer is doing is using a canonical and conventional set of tools to model whatever happens in the life of the individual.

He is NEVER concerned in his practice or techniques with how the real synchronistic celestial events are affecting the individual, what he does is use different kinds of a-synchronous celestial motions in a manipulative, physically impossible but convenient way, following a pre-established set of rules, all this in order to build a mathematical or algebraic model that can be used to analyze and predict whatever happens in real life.

This means that in the specific case of natal astrology, with the exception of the moment of birth itself in a limited way, each one individual moment charted never represents what is happening in the sky at that one specific moment in the life of an individual. The widespread idea that Astrology's basic principle is the direct correspondence between what happens on earth or in our lives and what happens in the sky is therefore contradicted by the practice of Natal Astrology, and cannot be used to explain or describe the theoretical basis of Astrology.

Juan

Last edited by Juan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:18 pm; edited 2 times in total

...
This means that in the specific case of natal astrology, the one individual moment charted never represents what is happening in the sky at that one specific moment in the life of an individual, except the actual moment of birth in a limited way. The widespread idea that Astrology's basic principle is the direct correspondence between what happens on earth or in our lives and what happens in the sky is therefore contradicted by the practice of Natal Astrology, and therefore cannot be used to explain or describe the theoretical basis of Astrology.

Juan

That's right. All it describes is the fundamental interpretive rule (in the mathematical sense) of the system.

I will say something because young students can read all this crap and they can believe it and be badly affected by it.

Juan wrote:

.
The previous post refers to the effects of ignoring celestial latitude and ignoring the effect of parallax, which is how astrologers work 95% of the time.

Modern astrological software automatically correct these and 99.9% of modern astrologers use astrological software in their daily work, so why you don't better waste your time exploring the errors of medical technology? you would definitely find it more interesting...

Anyway these variations as the parallax are so tiny that they are of almost irrelevant astrological significance.

Juan wrote:

.
But the actual situation in the real world is even more complicated. If, having calculated the time of the conjunction in zodiacal topocentric longitude instead of the standard geocentric longitude, I look at the sky and ...

A standard birth chart must be set up for geocentric longitude, so what you explain here is irrelevant again.

Birth charts synchronistically mirror the sky at birth, they take into account astrological factors of interest for to analyze this, all other physical factors not related to this purpose are of not interest in astrology.

Your approach and critic of the system of transits is too simplistic as your reasoning usually is, astrology is based in units of time and it's technique is much more complex than the physical meaning that you seem to be obsessed with give to it and reduce it to it.

And about physically modelling synchronicity this is as absurd as to try to physically model relativity or gravity... These should be scientifically inferred instead.

In conclusion, a lot of deliberately-generated confusion and nothing interesting to read in this thread.

Modern astrological software automatically correct these and 99.9% of modern astrologers use astrological software in their daily work, so why you don't better waste your time exploring the errors of medical technology? you would definitely find it more interesting... Anyway these variations as the parallax are so tiny that they are of almost irrelevant astrological significance.

About the first point: no, modern astrological software does not correct automatically for parallax, unless you configure it to do it. Correction for parallax is almost never done because it is not a standard procedure, and when done by a small minority, it is considered experimental.

The correction for the distorting effects of ignoring celestial latitude is never done. There are some interesting experimental alternatives to ecliptic longitude that yield a more accurate representation of a planet's real position in the sky, but these are as a rule never used when drawing horoscopes, they are even more experimental than correcting for parallax.

The second point: parallax is negligible in the case of the planets but everybody knows (or almost everybody, you didn't) that it can become very significant in the case of the Moon, as I illustrated in the example.

Quote:

A standard birth chart must be set up for geocentric longitude, so what you explain here is irrelevant again.

The whole point of the post was to illustrate how relevant it is to discuss what happens when we use geocentric longitudes, particularly in the case of the Moon. It is so relevant that your dogmatic assertion that the birth chart mirrors the physical reality of the sky has been shown to be false.

Quote:

Birth charts synchronistically mirror the sky at birth,...

You keep repeating this as a dogma of faith even though it has been shown with an example why it is insufficient and in many cases false. This is as a matter of fact and not just personal opinion. I provided a more accurate or realistic description where instead of "mirrors" one uses the mathematical concept of "reduction" (of or to coordinates). If we don't discuss the epistemological implications of working with this reduction to discrete mathematical coordinates --which is what astrologers do-- we won't be able to understand what Astrology is or isn't.

Quote:

Your approach and critic of the system of transits is too simplistic as your reasoning usually is,

If you believe that I am criticizing the "system of transits", it is because you have not understood my approach.

I am criticizing nothing of standard astrological practice or techniques, I'm only trying to understand better what these practices or techniques are and how they work, and how they DON'T work. But I do criticize and challenge openly and directly some of the most taken for granted theoretical assumptions of astrologers about their practice and the nature of Astrology, and about the techniques they use, because in many cases --like yours-- they are demonstrably false.

The reason why Bill and I are challenging those assumptions so strongly is not out of panic as you have expressed, but because they are typical of the astrological establishment, and being so demonstrably false, are keeping our theoretical understanding of Astrology in a hopeless state of stagnation and confusion.

The clearest illustration of this confusion is when the points we are making are labelled as "opinions" so that "ok, nice, I disagree and also have my own opinions". Personally, my interest in writing about this is to show that even though we all have our personal opinions and preferences, it is also possible to separate what is mere opinion from what is demonstrable fact.

Quote:

And about physically modelling synchronicity this is as absurd as to try to physically model relativity or gravity... These should be scientifically inferred instead. - Sonia

I'm not talking of modeling synchronicity physically (please look at what I was replying in the first place). Both relativity and gravity have been modeled physically in multiple ways with micrometric accuracy (e.g. in the equations of planetary motion). As Bill and Yuzuru have said using different words, you are "orinando fuera del tarro".

Juan

Last edited by Juan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:33 am; edited 2 times in total

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated